FEDERAL DEBATE SCANDAL

[betsy]

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That bald guy's voice (5:40) was getting all high-pitched like he was about to cry. What happened to cause that? 

I don't see it in the video. 

 

 

What timer in the video are you referring to?

 

Could it be because he tried to get Ezra Levant to be booted out of the English Debate venue (which he allegedly pre-emptedly announced) , but failed?   Also, I can't find the clip with him and Michel Comier (which was done before the English Debate) - I had seen it live - they had a tense moment.

Edited April 21 by betsy

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The Hill Times guy is a nut.  I'd be fine banning him, and banning David Menzies for provoking people by shoving bright lights 6 inches from someones face to annoy them and just being a troll.

David Cochrane of the CBC should also be fired from our public broadcaster, and CBC News should include no political opinions, especially when they're lies/misinformation.  ZERO.  They're the public broadcaster, they must remain 100% politically objective and only present factual information to the public.

And i was talking about the rules for getting in to ask questions in the first place.  2 of the questioned Rebel asked were biased nonsense, but the other 2 were legit questions.

All right, which of the two questions were biased nonsense. We'll start there

[Nationalist]

LOL...Sooo...the Canadian Libbies can't stand their candidates being asked tough questions. What a shocker.

What childish little babies.

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Sure it is. The CBC, if you can call it news, wants our tax dollars. There are certain questions people want asked.

Too bad?  It's not up to you to decide which questions they ask or what angles they investigate.  They've no obligation to ask everyone's questions, or proportionally representative ones, especially if those questions are stupid.  

14 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

CBC has an obvious bias. Maybe you don't see it. That's fine. If you enjoy it, fund it yourself. If CBC is so great, it ought to be able to stand on it's own two feet.

Believe it or not, I actually agree it's biased, and I also agree that if it wants taxpayer funds that it needs to be less politicized.  I wouldn't shed many tears if it was defunded. 

Where we probably don't agree, however, is in the goofy MSM conspiracy theories.  It's all fine and good to not trust a news group, and you should have a healthy degree of skepticism about all of them.  What's problematic, however, is when you don't trust any of it, from anywhere, unless it's telling you exactly what you want to hear.  Those are the donkeys following Rebel Media.  

Edited April 21 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...Sooo...the Canadian Libbies can't stand their candidates being asked tough questions. What a shocker.

What childish little babies.

What bothers reasonable people is open hypocrisy, namely the questioning of reasonably objective sources like CTV, Global, CBC, and the printed press... while giving these Rebel bozos a pass.

It makes us want to put you on IGNORE, because you won't concede a point.

Moonbox and I don't often agree, but he/she has framed the situation in a way that passes the reason test: everybody has bias, and the CBC is possibly more biased than the rest but that doesn't mean that trying to be objective is without value.

 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

Previous page of this thread:

Try again you silly twit.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's a hard argument to reject.  The Rebel may have a constitutional right to join the line to ask questions.  Can you reject them for being clowns?  I dunno.

The challenge becomes who gets to define them as clowns?

If we say that the government does then that gives the government the power to determine anybody's account. How about the CBC? They frequently have skits on this hour has 22 minutes that only attack conservatives and never do one for the liberals or NDP. Literally clowns that he would say. So if the conservatives form government can they ban the CBC from attending any event?

The group who is tasked with determining whether or not they have a right to be there is the courts and the courts have ruled.

If we let any other group be the arbitrator of who is and isn't a serious journalist then we essentially give up the idea of freedom of the press. Now there are those who suggest maybe we should be giving that up and I suppose someone can make an argument one way or another but as long as we believe in the freedom of the press then we have to respect that there are many Canadians who like the kind of reporting rebel does. I don't watch them but obviously someone does and every once in a blue moon they do come out with a story that nobody else covered that is interesting

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They were ruling on whether or not they were legitimate news orgs DESPITE any other activities.

Bullshit.

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's literally what CBC reporters did on-air too though after the debates.  And CBC lied at least 3 times on-air in the post-debate coverage.  It's literally on camera.

I point out the lies here:  https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/canada-discussion-forum/debate-gate/?message=142177

You said in your link...

The first was after Singh's scrum. A Rebel reporter stated in her question that no human remains have been confirmed at former residential school sites initially reported since 2021. But after the scum (see 10:45 in the below video) Rosemary Barton claimed that human have indeed been found at former school sites. 

This is FALSE. (consult your favorite AI chat bot like ChatGPT or Grok to confirm yourself):

Ok....I did what you said and this is what I got.

AI Overview

Yes, human remains, particularly those of Indigenous children, have been found at some former residential school sites in Canada.

Now what?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

You can't really reject them for being bad at journalism. Otherwise, lots of other post media outlets would be rejected. 

You can reject them for not being journalists though.

The courts have said their journalists. You think that they are not journalists because you don't like them but that is not what determines the definition of a journalist.

The court's already ruled. These are journalists. Whether you like that or not is your problem but it doesn't change the result

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit.

 

Sorry but they did. You have a long habit of just simply saying bullshit well you know you're wrong but don't want to admit it. If you claim it's bullshit then prove your point and show me where I'm wrong

The court cases are quite evidentthey've had two completely different ones years apart.

Everything was considered and it was argued that they weren't real journalists. The court said they were despite everything else they do and they have a right to be there

I know, being a fascist socialist you would much rather take the Mussolini route and simply hang any reporters you disagree with from the city gates but sadly this is Canada and for the moment we are still a democracy and the courts have ruled. So suck it up

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What bothers reasonable people is open hypocrisy, namely the questioning of reasonably objective sources like CTV, Global, CBC, and the printed press... while giving these Rebel bozos a pass.

It makes us want to put you on IGNORE, because you won't concede a point.

Moonbox and I don't often agree, but he/she has framed the situation in a way that passes the reason test: everybody has bias, and the CBC is possibly more biased than the rest but that doesn't mean that trying to be objective is without value.

 

Reasonably objective? Hardly...

But OK I'll bite. What makes the Rebel News people "bozos"?

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

And what about newspapers who run editorials supporting specific parties and candidates?  What about the Toronto Star that hasn't endorses a right-leaning party for many decades?

I suspect this would be frowned on if they were also registered as political advocates or campaign advertisers.  They make it bleedingly obvious they're stating their opinion.

In the meantime is it Rebel's fault the Debate Commission didn't realize they were advocates and campaign advertisers? In any case it should have been a consortium of broadcasters not political appointees who determined if they should have been afforded the same privilege as other news broadcasters.

 

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The courts have said their journalists. You think that they are not journalists because you don't like them but that is not what determines the definition of a journalist.

Where did the courts say that?  A federal court literally ruled they were not back in September, when Rebel appealed being denied federal subsidies and the decision was upheld on the basis that they do almost literally zero actual journalism.  🙃   

Edited April 21 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

That's not their fault that they were given a pass to ask questions.

They've registered as a political advocacy group!

Yup, it's the Debate Commission's fault.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Furthermore - what's the difference between them and the CBC?  😁

 

One is funded by taxpayers, that's one difference.  So, they have the "semblance" of legitimacy.

And, we're lulled into thinking they are, because they look like a news channel!

More importantly though the CBC is not a registered political advocate. You saying they are doesn't make it so.

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Too bad?  It's not up to you to decide which questions they ask or what angles they investigate.  They've no obligation to ask everyone's questions, or proportionally representative ones, especially if those questions are stupid.  

If they won't cover issues important to conservatives, then they shouldn't have to be funded by them. End of.

But the issue here is not that the CBC does not ask those questions. It's that someone else did. It's not the questions weren't asked. They were. By Rebel. They were allowed to be there. And CBC and other mainstream lost their minds. They even resorted to pretending that they were somehow threatened by their presence. Too bad.

Edited April 21 by CouchPotato

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The court's already ruled. These are journalists. Whether you like that or not is your problem but it doesn't change the result.

Were they also registered as campaign advertisers when the court weighed in?

I suspect not.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Where did the courts say that?  A federal court literally ruled they were not back in September, when Rebel appealed being denied federal subsidies and the decision was upheld on the basis that they do almost literally zero actual journalism.  🙃   

The courts said that the last two times the commission tried to deny them access. 

According to a 2019 report from the commission, it turned down four organizations after having “concluded they were involved in political activism.” The decision was challenged by two of the organizations, Rebel News and True North, in Federal Court, which “ruled on an interim basis that, among other things, the Commission did not follow the rules of procedural fairness in respect of its denial of accreditation and ordered the accreditation of the two organizations. They obtained an injunction requiring the Commission to allow them to cover the debates and press availabilities of the leaders immediately following the debates.”

**SNIP FOR BREVATY*

“When an organization: becomes an actor in the stories it tells, including providing and applying financial and legal assistance to some of its sources to work toward a desired outcome or offering free legal services, crowdfunds to help some individuals in stories hire lawyers, purchases political advertising and launches petitions;

 

Or, when a reporter: writes opinion pieces about subjects they also cover as journalists, endorses political candidates or causes, takes part in demonstrations, signs petitions, does public relations work, fundraises and makes financial contributions.”

 

Based on this criteria, the commission rejected Rebel News’ application to participate in the scrums again in 2021. After Rebel again took the commission to Federal Court, it won an injunction allowing it to cover the debates despite not meeting the commission’s guidelines.

Terry Newman: Debate commission loses to Rebel News again | National Post

You can look up the actual cases, but twice the commission, specifically the commission we're talking about here, Tried to deny them access based specifically on the grounds that they were activists rather than serious journalists and both times it went to court and both times they lost and lost hard.

 

So this specific thing has specifically been tried in court twice. The courts have said they are journalists and they cannot be denied access given to other journalists.

I can see how they might be denied funding because of their activism based on the idea that you are giving funding to more than just journalists but that does not change the fact that they are still journalists.

So when we're talking about giving them access to events we are talking about freedom of the press any press that's invited must include them as well because they are considered to be no different than CBC or anybody else as far as their journalistic credentials go.

Like I said, they're not particularly my cup of tea, but neither are magazines like the Georgia Street or the tyee.  But I would never suggest that they should be denied journalistic credentials just because they are heavily biased and engage inactivism from time to time.

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup, it's the Debate Commission's fault.

The last two times the debate commission tried to bar them they got taken to court and lost.

Not their fault either. Tell the voices in your head that they were wrong again

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The court said they were despite everything else they do

The court said that explicitly - despite even being political advocates and campaign advertisers?

I haven't seen anything to corroborate this and that states it as explicitly as you have.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You can look up the actual cases, but twice the commission, specifically the commission we're talking about here, Tried to deny them access based specifically on the grounds that they were activists rather than serious journalists and both times it went to court and both times they lost and lost hard.

What about on the grounds they were campaign advertisers? That's far more than just being an activist don't you think?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Were they also registered as campaign advertisers when the court weighed in?

I suspect not.

Their activist activities were the whole point. They were considered to be activists by the commission. This was only a couple of years ago. And the rebel was listed as a third party advertiser for both elections

But it turns out that an organization can be two things. It can absolutely have an activist Wing, and you can still have a journalistic wing that pursue stories.

So you can have "rebel news registered PAC Advertizer', rebel news "media reporting", rebel news "meteorological and weather forecasters", etc etc

Which is of course what the concern was, the court had ruled that just because rebel news had some divisions that weren't reporters diddn't mean that all the divisions that were still had to be invited. 

ALL of them    So rebel news has 11 'journaist' divisions.  The commission knew they had the right to demand ALL 11 be allowed to send a reporter  

They negotiated them down to 5. But that's why they were so overrepresented for their size. 

but each one of them still has the right to be there as journalists. Even though other elements of Rebel Media engage in advertising or advocacy work. 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The last two times the debate commission tried to bar them they got taken to court and lost.

Third time's the charm they say. Good luck.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The court said that explicitly - despite even being political advocates and campaign advertisers?

I haven't seen anything to corroborate this and that states it as explicitly as you have.

Go read the court rulings for god's sake. I'm really not interested in spoon feeding your stupidity on a minute by minute basis.

The courts were explicit, the rebel news reporters would have to be allowed. If I have to jump up and down every time you don't know something i'll wind up tilting the planet

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Third time's the charm they say. Good luck.

No lawyer ever says that.

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Their activist activities were the whole point.

Sounds like the courts will have to be more specific next time. I suspect the distinction between activist and advocate will need to be spelled out more clearly.

$10 bucks says being an advocate won't cut it.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about on the grounds they were campaign advertisers? That's far more than just being an activist don't you think?

They've always been campaign advertisers

The issue is who is they? As I explained previously any organization can be more than one thing. Consider the CBC, they have journalists but they also have a comedy show that made fun of the conservatives and not other parties. Does that mean that the journalists were somehow not journalists anymore? Would that make it paid advertising under the election rules?

At the end of the day the two things are completely separate. And to protect itself that's what rebel news did. Which is also how they got so many people there

I know your hatred and bigotry drive you to try and find some sort of argument where your personal desire to repress the news or journalism is somehow justified. But you're just not going to get there like this. For better or worse they are journalists even if other elements of their organization are also something else and the court has said that if you are allowing one journalist to submit then you must allow all

[CouchPotato]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Third time's the charm they say. Good luck.

If they tried again to prevent Rebel from being there after being ordered by the courts twice that they had to allow them, the courts might look even more unfavorably upon them. That is probably why they caved and gave Rebel more questions when they threatened to sue.